Idaho news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1887-1891, 1887-11-12
THE ANARCHISTS


AID carefully prepared opinion, which oc'
cupied thirty. i've minutes in reading. Tbs
court held in brief, Fixst, that the first ten
amendments to the constitution are limlta-
tons upon federal and upon state action.
Second, that the jury law of Illinois is
upon its face valid and constitutional, and
it IS similar in its provisions to the statute
OF Utah, which was sustained in the court
in the case Of Hopt vs. the terri
tory of Utah. Third, that it does
not appear in the records that
upon the evidence the trial court should
have found juror SANFORD incompetent.
Fourth, that the objection to the admission
Of Johann Most and the letter and cross
examination Of Spies, which counsel for
prisoners maintained virtually compelled
them to testify against themselves, were
not objected to in trial court, and that,
therefore. no foundation was laid
for exercise of this courts jurisdiction.
Fifth, that the questions raised
BY General Butler, in the cases Of Spies
and Fielden, upon the basis of their foreign
nationality were neither raised nor decided
in the state courts, and therefore cannot be
considered here. The writ of error must
consequently be denied.
There was no dissenting opinion.
Text OF the Decree.
The text of the decision is as follows.
Supreme court of the United States, Octo-
Der term. 3 !, E1 parts. " hen, as in this
case, application Is made to as gt the sugges-
ton Of one OF our number, 10 whom similar
app LEGATION had been pre-. iousIy addressed,
for allowance OF writ of error 10 the highest
court Of a stalc, under section sol Of tine re-
ytsed statutes, il Is our duty 10 asc4rtA n, not
only whether any questtoe reversible nere
was made aud decided la the proper court
below, but whether 1t Is Of = character to JUS
tify Us IN bringing tile judgment here Tor re-
examination. InOuF opinion the writ ought
not be allowed by the court n tappears fFOn
the face of the record that the decision Of the
federal question which Is cOmplSlned OF was
20 plainly right as not TO require argument,
and eSpeCl ally II = is in accordance with
our own well considered judgments in sim
done in Twitchen vs.. the Commonwealth,
Wall. 32j, where writ WAS refused because
the qptstions. presented by the record were
no longer subjects OF discussion: although II
they had been, in the opinion OF the court,
open, ~ would have been allowed, when,
under section Of cur rule 6 A M ton 20
affirm. when the question on which our juris-
diction depends was so manifestiy decided
right, that the case ought not 10 De held Tor
further ar sunent., .Arrowsmlth V. llar-
VS. r.eisy, Il. United States, H.. The pro-
priety Of adopting a similar rule upon
NOTIONS IN oPES COURT
for the allowance Of writ is apparent, for
certainly we would not be justified as n court
in sending out writ TO bring for review a
judgment of the highest court OF tine state
when it is apparentun the face OF the record
that IL would be our duty 10 grant q motion
to affirm as soon as IL was made la proper
form. In the present case. We have hal the
benefit OF argument In support or tho appii-
cation, and while counsel have not deemed
y their duty TO 80 fully in.o the merits OF
the questions Involved, they have shown us
distinctly what tile decisions were Of which
they complain, and how the questions arose.
In this way we are able TO determine, rs a
court in session, whether the errors ALLEGED
are such as to justify US in bring cling the cases
here for review. We proceed then a. const er
what the questions are In which, ifit exists at
AL, our Jurisdiction depends. The part c lar
provisions OF the constitution OF the United
states, on which TIE counsel rely,
and "A Of the amendments. That the
first ten articles OF ameadCnI were not In
tended to limit the powers on the state gov
ernments In respect to their own citizens but
to operate on the national government
alone, was decided more than half a century
~ o, and that declaration has beCn steadily
adhered - since. It was cunlended however.
In the argument that though originally the
first ten amendment we're adopted ~ Itmitl-
lions on federal pOWeE, vet In 50 far a. they
secure and re gliZe fund lmeaLll rights, the
common law rights OF the MAJ, they make
the privileges and lmmaHitles OF
THE MAN AS 4 CITIZEN
ofthe United States cannot now be abridged
by a state under the 0urteeath Amendment:
In other words. while the ten amend nea;s,
as Limitations on power, only Apply to the
federal government, AMI not to the state I; yet
in So far IS they declare or recognize the right
OF prisoners 1esc rights are theirs ~ citizens
Of the United states and the fourteenth
amendment, a. To sLca rights, limits suites
federal foSer. II Is also commended that the
provision Of the fourteenth amendment,
which declares that no state shalt deprive
any person of life, liberty or property with.
out due process OF law, implies tia. every
person charged wiki crime In a II tte shall
be entitled 70 trial by an impartial jury
aud shall not be compelled to tcs.Ify against
himself The objections are IN britE ~
That a sta'us II a sL4ie, as construed by The
court, deprived the petitioners 81 . trial by
an impartial jury; and ~ that Spies WAS
compelled 70 give
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF.
Before considering whether the constitution
Of the United States has thu ene { which Is
claimed ,itis proper to inquire whether the ictl.
eral questions ruled on In fact arise on the
face Of this record One statute to which oh
1874, and has been In force since July j. 81
that year. The complaint Is that the trial
court, acting under this statute AMI in aC-
G. rdanCs with its requirements, cOnpelIUl |
the petitioners. against their will, to submit
% trial By jury that was not impartial, aud
thus deprived them Of one nf the frndlmen.
tai rights which they had, as citizens or the
United states, under the national cOnstt6 u.
tiOn, and II the sentence Of the court Il ear. |
ried Into execution they will be deprived VI
their lives without due process Of law.
In H0pt VS.. Utah, ~ q. s.. ~, it was d ;.
cided by this court that when 'haH ny,
by defendant In criminal action. 20 Juror |
nj Inn.
the juror is therenpon persmpt Jrlly c.faI- |
lenged by tile defendant aud excused and an |
Impartial and com potent juror is obtained n |
his place, NJ injury ~ done TIN defendant H. |
until tn jury y completed he has other
rEREMPToRY CHALLESGEs,
which he can use. And so in Hayes VIZ.
Missouri, 12) u. s., u, II was said that the |
right TO challenge is the right to re.ett. and /
so select juror. If from those VIII remain,
an impartial jury is obtained. an the o n. /
stltutiCnal right Of the accused Is maintained. |
Oi the cDFFectue5s OF these rulings we enter
tain no doubt.
We are therefore confined I'm this case
TO the rulings on tho challenges to
ne Jurors, =, WHO actually sat at
TWO, Theodore Denker, the third Juror, who
was sworn, and a. I. sanford, the last VINO
was called and sworn after all the peremptory /
cnaiItnges OF the defendants had been ex-
haustei. At the trial the court construed the
atnte TO mean that although Juror, called
" jnryman, may have formed an opinion
oAsed upon TnmOr, or upon newspaper state
nents, but has expressed no opioion as 70 the
truth OF the newspaper statement. he Is
stlli ,quallhed as Juror, If he states
Lnat ne can fairly and impartialiy render
verdict thereon in accord lnce with the law
and the evidence, and the court shall be sat
SIZED Of the truth Of such statement. IL is
not teat question whether juror will bare
The opinion, VIII oh he ha4 formed from news
papers, changed by the evidence. but whether
MS verdict viii be based only upon the ac-
= frut VIII On may here no arfypgR ~ IND |
inher oath. Interpreted in this way, the
question IL not as to the constitutIonaiity of
ne statute, and 1t was regarded both In tho